What goes on at Bombarier Derby??

[al.currie93]

Just a question out of curiosity, what is actually done there?? Is it simply the assembling of prefabricated parts to a train, or is it more extensive manufacture than that. Also, are trains, like the Electrostars and Turbostars, actually designed there, or is this work done elsewhere??

Many tthanks

 

[Manchester77]

Yes as far as I know all the important parts like traction package are imported and just put together at Derby

 

[Wyvern]

I believe the aluminium bodyshells are manufactured in Derby as are many other components, some being subcontracted around the city. Some large and/or specialised components such as the bogies are sourced from other Bombardier works in other countries. (Much like your car really)

THe actual design of the Turbostar and Electrostar, however, can be traced back to British Rail designs.

 

[Eagle]

THe actual design of the Turbostar and Electrostar, however, can be traced back to British Rail designs.

Specifically it's a derivative of the Networker design (as is particularly obvious when you see the 168/0s, which are clearly a Networker-Turbostar hybrid in appearance).

 

[BananaRepublic]

There has been mention previously, that components and sub-assemblies come from other Bombardier factories in Europe, as well as from other subcontractors and suppliers.
IIRC, it was said that some internal fittings are now coming from China?

 

[asylumxl]

THe actual design of the Turbostar and Electrostar, however, can be traced back to British Rail designs.

And those designs are still in use today with various minor updates. While the design works in most terms, it does say something about Bombardier's business methods.

 

[Mikey C]

I presume the London Underground 2009 and S stock was designed in Derby too, though based on the international MOVIA programme?

 

[Wyvern]

And those designs are still in use today with various minor updates. While the design works in most terms, it does say something about Bombardier's business methods.

Well they take an existing design already suited to UK conditions and gradually develope it. Seems good to me.

 

[asylumxl]

Well they take an existing design already suited to UK conditions and gradually develope it. Seems good to me.

Poor in comparison to Siemens or CAFs offerings. Both companies show there is a lot of room for improvement. Call me a cynic, but I'm qutie sure Bombardier will use the initial design until there is no money ot be made and will then close the Derby plant.

 

[northwichcat]

Poor in comparison to Siemens or CAFs offerings. Both companies show there is a lot of room for improvement.

The 185s have hardly been a success with their very high fuel consumption and having a poorer ride quality than the Turbostars. If First TPE could go back in time I'd be surprised if they'd go for the Siemens Desiro option again.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

The 185s have hardly been a success with their very high fuel consumption and having a poorer ride quality than the Turbostars. If First TPE could go back in time I'd be surprised if they'd go for the Siemens Desiro option again.

But they have - they chose the 350s (granted the fuel issue doesn't apply).
I'm not sure Turbostars would have worked as well in the hills.
Voyagers would, but they have fuel/weight problems too.
And TPE couldn't wait to ditch their 175s, the only other option.

 

[317666]

The 185s have hardly been a success with their very high fuel consumption and having a poorer ride quality than the Turbostars. If First TPE could go back in time I'd be surprised if they'd go for the Siemens Desiro option again.

But compare how well a 185 can climb hills and accelerate compared to a 170. And the 172s have hardly been a success with their heavily delayed introduction and fault with the exhaust system which turned out not to exist after all.

 

[TheGrew]

I am sure the 185s would have much better fuel consumption if they were fitted with the same engines as the 170s. But hill climb was specified and Siemens Delivered. There is a little bit of a difference between a 422hp and a 750hp engine (Pulled from Wikipedia)

I would actually argue that the 185s have been a fantastic success in providing the fast transpennie services they operate, I doubt anything other than an EMU would be able to do them better.

 

[Eagle]

And those designs are still in use today with various minor updates. While the design works in most terms, it does say something about Bombardier's business methods.

Sort of. Bombardier are moving to the new Aventra design (the 379s are a hybrid), of which I'm not sure how much descends from the classic Electrostar.

Bombardier are no longer offering Electrostars for new orders, although they will build them as add-ons for existing fleets such as the new 377s (which I believe are also part Aventra now).

 

[starrymarkb]

The 185s have hardly been a success with their very high fuel consumption and having a poorer ride quality than the Turbostars. If First TPE could go back in time I'd be surprised if they'd go for the Siemens Desiro option again.

Didn't the Bombardier proposal for TPE have an additional auxiliary engine per vehicle for hotel power putting the total power in the 700hp range?

 

[HSTEd]

There were all sorts of Bombardier schemes.

One, which I think would have been better in hindsight, involved a Voyager class.

 

[al.currie93]

Specifically it's a derivative of the Networker design (as is particularly obvious when you see the 168/0s, which are clearly a Networker-Turbostar hybrid in appearance).

Thought that that was the case would the derivations and adaptions to the design have been done at Derby then? Or was that all done abroad??

 

[Wyvern]

The original developments would have been done in Derby. How much is done now I dont know. With all the uncertainty over work from time to time I bet many design staff have moved to Toyota or Rolls-Royce

 

[fgwrich]

Sort of. Bombardier are moving to the new Aventra design (the 379s are a hybrid), of which I'm not sure how much descends from the classic Electrostar.

Bombardier are no longer offering Electrostars for new orders, although they will build them as add-ons for existing fleets such as the new 377s (which I believe are also part Aventra now).

From the look of the pictures, the body shell unsurprisingly remains the same - most seem to show a 378 type bodyshell, with the B5000 bogie (Now known as Bombardier Eco Flexx) - itself another recycled product having originally been designed as a BREL Higher Speed Freight wagon design.

The 2009 Stock was really an update to the former BREL 1992 Central Line stock as well, just with reduced window height and a newer Bombardier 'Movia' traction package. Again however the same basic design remains the same, just updated.

 

[Wyvern]

"BREL Higher Speed Freight wagon design.?"

Not HSFV1? That did 140mph on the roller rig?

 

[Eagle]

The 2009 Stock was really an update to the former BREL 1992 Central Line stock as well, just with reduced window height and a newer Bombardier 'Movia' traction package. Again however the same basic design remains the same, just updated.

Not surprised that tube stock retains an older bodyshell; the London tube tunnel gauge is quite specific.

 

[fgwrich]

"BREL Higher Speed Freight wagon design.?"

Not HSFV1? That did 140mph on the roller rig?

Cant remember the specifics of the original design - i'll try to dig out the Modern Railways magazine which had some greater detail of them a while back, but the origins of the B5000 Was certainly in BREL and for use under freight rolling stock. Higher speeds wouldn't surprise me (and if my memories working correctly!).

 

[Class172]

But compare how well a 185 can climb hills and accelerate compared to a 170. And the 172s have hardly been a success with their heavily delayed introduction and fault with the exhaust system which turned out not to exist after all.

I certainly wouldn't say that the 172s haven't been a success - far from it. Like most other classes they have suffered teething problems (and in the 172s' case it was rather a flawed test than mechanical issues etc) and now do an excellent job in my opinion overall.

 

[D365]

I certainly wouldn't say that the 172s haven't been a success - far from it. Like most other classes they have suffered teething problems (and in the 172s' case it was rather a flawed test than mechanical issues etc) and now do an excellent job in my opinion overall.

Well it's in your name

 

[northwichcat]

But they have - they chose the 350s (granted the fuel issue doesn't apply).

First TPE didn't chose the 350s. LM awarded the tender for 350s and DfT said TPE have to get 350s as well as 40 carriages is too small an order for a separate tender.

Anyway I was referring to if they could go back in time, opposed to ordering additional units now that they've already got a fleet of mainly Siemens units.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I am sure the 185s would have much better fuel consumption if they were fitted with the same engines as the 170s. But hill climb was specified and Siemens Delivered. There is a little bit of a difference between a 422hp and a 750hp engine (Pulled from Wikipedia)

I would actually argue that the 185s have been a fantastic success in providing the fast transpennie services they operate, I doubt anything other than an EMU would be able to do them better.

Yes - hill climbing ability and they delivered something probably powerful enough to climb the Bavarian Alps.

The TPE service with the longest gaps between calling points (at the time the order was placed) was Manchester to Hull. This is a route the 185s effectively failed on due to not being able to run at Sprinter speeds between Selby and Hull, a problem that's also occurred between Hazel Grove and Sheffield.

 

[ainsworth74]

This is a route the 185s effectively failed on due to not being able to run at Sprinter speeds between Selby and Hull, a problem that's also occurred between Hazel Grove and Sheffield.

Not sure what your definition of failed is but seeing as they can happily keep time with 170s/158s over that route...

 

[northwichcat]

Not sure what your definition of failed is but seeing as they can happily keep time with 170s/158s over that route...

Precisely the point. A 100mph class 185 can match a 90mph 158 or a 100mph 170 not beat it, despite all the extra engine power and all the extra diesel used.

 

[ainsworth74]

Well if you want to upgrade the line so 185s can take advantage of their power and higher speed then I'm sure they'll speed up the run. Otherwise I'm not sure what your point is. The only other contemporary, the 170, didn't speed up the run either so is that also a failure on that route?

 

[northwichcat]

Well if you want to upgrade the line so 185s can take advantage of their power and higher speed then I'm sure they'll speed up the run. Otherwise I'm not sure what your point is. The only other contemporary, the 170, didn't speed up the run either so is that also a failure on that route?

1. I said 'effectively failed' not 'failed' and that's because the selling point of much faster at hill climbing didn't deliver any overall benefit.
2. I was responding to a claim from TheGrew which was along the lines of 'nothing available is better than a 185 for TPE routes.' If the 158s and 170s can match the timings of a 185 and use a lot less fuel to do so then I disagree with the claim and that's the point you seem to be objecting to me making.

 

[ainsworth74]

1. I said 'effectively failed' not 'failed' and that's because the selling point of much faster at hill climbing didn't deliver any overall benefit.

Other than faster journey times you mean?

2. I was responding to a claim from TheGrew which was along the lines of 'nothing available is better than a 185 for TPE routes.' If the 158s and 170s can match the timings of a 185 and use a lot less fuel to do so then I disagree with the claim and that's the point you seem to be objecting to me making.

The 185 matches the times on Hull - Manchester but beats them on three other North TPE routes. Fifteen minutes faster Manchester Airport - Newcastle, five minutes on Manchester Airport - Middlesbrough and a couple of minutes on Manchester Piccadilly - Scarborough. Indeed they could save even more time on all three because they sit at Leeds and York each for around five minutes (previously only a minute or two booked).

Good luck getting a 158 to match those timings and I suspect a 170 would probably struggle to deliver that much of a time saving.

I also wonder if having something that accelerates slower than a 185 wouldn't have an impact on the ECML. After all 185s out accelerate HSTs up to 100mph so I wonder if Eureka would have been negatively affected if they were trying to timetable around a slower train?

There might have been something better available (not sure what though) but I'm not sure anyone was going for it. After all wasn't the other main bid planning on using 4-car 180s? Hardly the most fuel efficient unit around what with it sharing an engine with 185s.